Have Ferrari found a loophole in engine freeze?

[WhiteBlue]

nobody commented on the idea of anlectric oil and air pumps which I thought was

gearbox development is ongoing for they have to last 4 races now. there have been some problems with this. also the last teams are just introducing their seamless boxes. I believe SA died before they got their version on track.

[Conceptual]

nobody commented on the idea of anlectric oil and air pumps which I thought was

gearbox development is ongoing for they have to last 4 races now. there have been some problems with this. also the last teams are just introducing their seamless boxes. I believe SA died before they got their version on track.

SA didn't die, they were sacrificed by Honda so they didn't have the embarassment that they recieved by getting SPANKED by SA last year.

Chris

[riff_raff]

"nobody commented on the idea of anlectric oil and air pumps"

WhiteBlue,

Running engine auxiliaries, such as oil and coolant pumps, via an electric motor at their optimum speed for any given condition independent of crank speed, is a good idea for a road car, but doesn't help much for an F1 engine. The reason is that road car engines run mostly at part throttle conditions, so the parasitic loss due to engine auxiliary devices (ie. coolant and oil pumps) can amount to a very large percentage relative to the power required to propel the vehicle, thus hurting fuel economy. An F1 engine, on the other hand, runs mostly at wide open throttle over a fairly narrow speed range. So the auxiliaries can be optimized for that limited operating condition.

In addition, electric drive motors for the auxiliaries would add weight versus a gear driven system, and would also require a heavy battery system.

My suggestion would be to drive the auxiliary devices (ie. oil and coolant pumps) via a "clutched" driveline. That way they could be disengaged (and thus unload the engine) for short periods when extra engine power is needed, like for passing. An extra 15 or 20 HP on-demand for passing would be very useful. To provide oil pressure for the short periods when the oil pump is disengaged, a small hydraulic accumulator can be plumbed into the lube system. As for the coolant pump, the engine should be able to operate safely for a few seconds with the coolant flow interrupted.

I haven't seen any rules in F1 that say this idea is not allowed

[walter]

As for the coolant pump, the engine should be able to operate safely for a few seconds with the coolant flow interrupted.

This makes good sense at high speeds on the straights, when plenty of air is getting into the engine bay anyways... just the area where Ferrari seem to be doing better than the rest.

on the other hand, that would also introduce a surge of moderately cooler oil into the engine(depending on the length of delay) and that could be an engine reliability risk in itself.

[WhiteBlue]

I am not convinced that the higher weigt would be such an issue. You position the equipment very low and use it instead of ballast.

I do know that F1 engines have much higher frictional losses compared to road going engines due to the high revving. Perhaps Ferrari have done some research in that field and managed to achieve lower friction.

[donskar]

Monaco might shed a different shade of light on this discussion. On the twisty streets, HP is (relatively) less important than TORQUE. We old-timers will recall the Ford 3 liter DFV V8 regularly beating more powerful, but less torquey V12s.

IF Ferrari has gained HP without any significant loss of torque (as a general rule impossible) then they have done something very special.

And let's all consider praising rather than doubting the teams that push the rules to the limit in the chase for more performance. Isn't that what this is all about? I hope Ferrari is straining every technology sinew they have in search of every ounce of HP and torque - while McLaren searches for ever improved aerodynamics and Frank Williams (or insert your favorite team here) keeps beating the bushes for every last dollar of sponsorhip.

Meanwhile, I can't help wondering how Ferrari can match, much less beat, the engines developed by the "giants": Honda, Mercedes, BMW, et al. No one would ever praise Ferrari as an underdog, but just think about the vast technical/human/financial resources these giant manufacturers can bring to bear.

[donskar]

White Blue wrote:

I am not convinced that the higher weigt would be such an issue. You position the equipment very low and use it instead of ballast.

No. Greater engine weight just exacerbates the tail heavy nature of F1 cars. You want an engine as light as possible so you can position your balance where it will do you the most good - generally well forward of the polar moment of inertia - in the nose.

[donskar]

White Blue wrote:

I am not convinced that the higher weigt would be such an issue. You position the equipment very low and use it instead of ballast.

No. Greater engine weight just exacerbates the tail heavy nature of F1 cars. You want an engine as light as possible so you can position your balance where it will do you the most good - generally well forward of the polar moment of inertia - in the nose.

[Jersey Tom]

You guys are nuts. Don't look at trap speeds and expect to pull out HP numbers. Engine is part of it. As is aero. As are wheel bearings. As is the driver. You can't just be looking at one thing and pulling out arbitrary numbers without ANY base.

Speaking of wheel bearings.. getting a better bearing can take tenths off your lap time. But no one speculates about that..

Hummmm, if everything is already SO optimized, how can they improve 25HP just by changing oil type? I'd rather think the whole package is so optimized that they manage to reduce aerodynamic drag and improve mechanical grip.

Nothing is optimized. There is no such thing in racing. There is always, always appreciable room for improvement. This is why regardless of engine power being slashed since the 4+ bar turbo 1.5's of the old days, lap times still drive lower and lower. In the petroleum industry you're always looking at new chemicals, new polymers, new blends, new methods of processing. Incrementally you can keep freeing up power.

IF Ferrari has gained HP without any significant loss of torque (as a general rule impossible) then they have done something very special.

You gain power by gaining torque, or by moving it. That is all.

Monaco might shed a different shade of light on this discussion. On the twisty streets, HP is (relatively) less important than TORQUE.

Torque, power, and gearing are all equally as important. Always. No way around it.

Meanwhile, I can't help wondering how Ferrari can match, much less beat, the engines developed by the "giants": Honda, Mercedes, BMW, et al. No one would ever praise Ferrari as an underdog, but just think about the vast technical/human/financial resources these giant manufacturers can bring to bear.

You'd be surprised how backwards racing can be, even at the top levels. Motorsports groups can be very separate from the OE/consumer side. Beyond that, they're two very different beasts. Ferrari is every bit as much as a manufacturer as the rest of those companies.

[donskar]

Jersey Tom your unqualified statements are gross oversimplifications.

[Jersey Tom]

I guarantee you they are not. But feel free to pick one out you disagree with and I'll gladly explain in detail.

[WhiteBlue]

...IF Ferrari has gained HP without any significant loss of torque (as a general rule impossible) then they have done something very special....

I would also disagree with this comment, but probably less rude.

with a fixed top rpm there is a lot to be gained by a wider torque distribution over the rev curve. particularly at Monaco drivability is top property. Adrian Newey said that they will have optimized engine mapping for drivability. the top teams will have done the same. whatever Ferrari have over McLaren I think that traction has a lot to do with it.

[Belatti]

Several posts here sound to me like if fixed rpm doesn´t allow you to gain power (or torque).

Power is force per time. Force is cyl pressure per cyl. area. Area is fixed and cylinder pressure depends on intake design, let external factors alone.

Also, power output is reduced due to internal friction and engine auxiliaries, but you have already talk about this.

[donskar]

I enjoy this technical exchange and I do not feel rudely treated - we often write in a sort of shorthand, and I usually post from work (like right now ) which sometimes requires abruptness. I also enjoy learning more (my ignorance is like the universe: vast and ever expanding).

Let me try to explain my belief with examples independent of any particular formula or set of rules.

Take a 2.4 liter engine producing 700 hp. I think it is accurate to say that, assuming competent engineering, hp of that engine could be increased by increasing the bore and reducing the stroke the required amount to maintain the 2.4 L displacement. The result would be an engine that would rev higher and almost without exception, produce more power. As has often been said, an ICE is essentially an air pump: the more air you can pump through it, the more HP you get. (Again, this assumes engineers competent in the design of valve train and combustion chamber.) But, at the same time, reducing the stroke would result in a loss of torque. (I am baffled by the statement that HP and torque are the same.)

Or maybe my belief (and I'm using that word because I'm happy to be enlightened) can be better illustrated with a street engine. Increase the length of the inlet tract and you get more torque, decrease the length and you get more HP. (Remember the now-banned varieable length intakes?) Similarly, on a 4 cylinder engine, a competently designed 4-into-1 exhaust header will produce more HP; switching to 4-2-1 header will give more torque. Obviously, all these statements are meant to be qualified by assuming the design/redesign is accompanied by engineering competence.

I hope I've clarified where I'm coming from. Looking forward to enlightenment.

[Jersey Tom]

I wouldn't say that longer intake (or exhaust) primaries gives you "more torque" and that shorter gives you "more power."

IMO from experience.. exhaust and cams have more impact than intake, but.. even then..

Longer intake and exhaust runners gives you more torque at low RPM. Shorter intake and exhaust runners (and more valve overlap) gives you more torque at high RPM.

The amount of torque the engine can produce at 100% VE is mostly going to be determined by fuel, combustion chamber design, bore/stroke, BMEP, etc.

Valvetrain, intake, and exhaust determine where that torque is most available, since volumetric efficiency is speed sensitive.

Torque and power are very, very closely related. Power is to a degree just a measure of where that engine torque is available. Since they're not really that different they're both equally as important. Power though is really the ability to do work and the ability to get as much energy into your vehicle as possible.

My Nissan 350 probably puts out as much peak torque as an F1 engine. Maybe even more. But in no way would I be capable of beating a grand prix car in just about any maneuver conceivable, since the F1 engine can place that torque so high in the RPM band, and through gearing can develop outrageous amounts of torque at the wheels.

Power, torque, gearing.. all equally as important.

At Monaco, getting lots of power down out of slow corners is important. Best way to do that is just by gearing. Making the torque come on lower would have the same effect and would make the car a bit more "street"-like, but you'd lose that top end at the outright ability for the car to develop heaps of power.